NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 covers 48.2% of Azure Security Benchmark
41 of the 85 controls in Azure Security Benchmark are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3. 44 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.
What this leaves you to do
Azure Security Benchmark has 85 controls. Holding NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 already evidences 41 of them, so the work in front of you is 44 controls, not 85, which is 52% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 41 controls of Azure Security Benchmark you do not have to implement again, which is $7.29 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 41 already evidenced are | 164 hours | 328 hours | 656 hours |
| and the 44 remaining are | 176 hours | 352 hours | 704 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of Azure Security Benchmark your NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.
112 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.
Where the gaps are
Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.
Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.
Claims that held
A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.
Both require a current, periodically reviewed inventory of system components.
Least functionality restricts which services may be used, the same approved service evidence.
Asset management functions are privileged functions restricted to privileged users and logged.
Deny all, allow by exception software list is exactly an application allow list.
Identifying and documenting CUI location is the sensitive data inventory an assessor wants.
Cryptographic protection of CUI in transit is the same evidence as enforced transport encryption.
Validated cryptography protecting CUI confidentiality is the at rest encryption evidence.
Key establishment and management covers the documented key lifecycle standard.
Claims that did not hold
Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.
The full report
Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.
Buy this crosswalk